Re: [dmarc-ietf] Definitely no Delegated authentication for Gmail

2023-04-24 Thread Barry Leiba
On-list meta-discussion is off topic. Please stop. Keep the discussion to technical topics that further the goal of arriving at solutions to open issues. Further discussion of this on the list will be subject to a 30-day ban from posting. Barry On Mon, Apr 24, 2023 at 6:02 PM Hector Santos

Re: [dmarc-ietf] Definitely no Delegated authentication for Gmail

2023-04-24 Thread Hector Santos
Barry, Please excuse any expressed anger. This is not the first time. The "Accidental Offline Post In Public On Purpose" was intentional posted because he has done it before and it will serves him no purpose to write his defamation of my character in private. He got his defaming points

Re: [dmarc-ietf] Definitely no Delegated authentication for Gmail

2023-04-24 Thread Barry Leiba
Ok, everyone, let’s take a rest here. First: John’s message was not nice. We can all agree on that. So… (1) John, please don’t send messages like that, even off list. You can clearly see why that’s good advice. (2) Everyone other than John, please just accept John’s word — I do — that

Re: [dmarc-ietf] Definitely no Delegated authentication for Gmail

2023-04-22 Thread Douglas Foster
Well John, we have some things to talk about, and it will have to be in public. You should remember that you blocked me from direct communication when I tried to start a side conversation about improving ARC. I conclude that I am one of the trolls that gets in your way, since I have been

Re: [dmarc-ietf] Definitely no Delegated authentication for Gmail

2023-04-22 Thread Hector Santos
Barry, This is wrong. He knows his post was not off-list. His defamation of my character is out of line. But he does it to those disagrees with. He is smarting than all of us. So nothing knew. Levine, editor of ADSP and the editor DMARCbis, needs to finally support DKIM Policy or give up

Re: [dmarc-ietf] Definitely no Delegated authentication for Gmail

2023-04-22 Thread John Levine
[[ rather off list ]] I think we all established a long time ago that the Internet that Hector uses is very unlike the one the rest of us use, and it's not worth arguing with him. That said, I really wish the chairs would shut down the trolls. They may not think they're trolls, but they are

Re: [dmarc-ietf] Definitely no Delegated authentication for Gmail

2023-04-22 Thread Dotzero
On Sat, Apr 22, 2023 at 2:04 PM Hector Santos wrote: > > On Apr 22, 2023, at 12:58 PM, John Levine wrote: > > It appears that Jesse Thompson said: > > -=-=-=-=-=- > > A DNS-based lookup, perhaps in the style of ATSP as this thread is > describing, to query for not just domain-level

Re: [dmarc-ietf] Definitely no Delegated authentication for Gmail

2023-04-22 Thread Hector Santos
> On Apr 22, 2023, at 12:58 PM, John Levine wrote: > > It appears that Jesse Thompson said: >> -=-=-=-=-=- >> >> A DNS-based lookup, perhaps in the style of ATSP as this thread is >> describing, to query for not just domain-level authorization, but also >> potentially user-level

Re: [dmarc-ietf] Definitely no Delegated authentication for Gmail

2023-04-22 Thread Douglas Foster
I am aware nobody is using ATSP. I have not seen an assessment of why nobody. The current implementation seems competitive with DKIM, which is my explanation for it's failure. Extending ATSP for user-to-domain, would address new functionality which addresses the large unsolved problem in our

Re: [dmarc-ietf] Definitely no Delegated authentication for Gmail

2023-04-22 Thread John Levine
It appears that Jesse Thompson said: >-=-=-=-=-=- > >A DNS-based lookup, perhaps in the style of ATSP as this thread is describing, >to query for not just domain-level authorization, but also potentially >user-level authorization, I think is >compelling because it can: Once again, no. This is